The wider implication of course is that "all" facts or claims that dispute the government account of 9/11 "fall apart." And that is quite the heart of a dishonest analysis.

1. No steel-framed building before or since 9/11 has ever collapsed due to fire.

"Rebuttal: Irrelevant. Lower structures did collapse, there were partial collapses where concrete elements and intensive firefighting were possible, and the thesis affirms the consequent, arguing that because fires have not led to this specific event in the past, they cannot do so now."

"Irrelevant?" Hardly. One hundred years of precedent meaningless? This fact (and it is a fact about steel framed structures, and it did not "fall apart" as claimed) is important for several reasons. It led to hundreds of firefighters rushing into the Towers for starters.

Counterpoint actually mentions "partial collapses." That is quite the difference. Total and complete rapid collapses into the buildings footprint did not happen to steel framed buildings, ever.

See what a real "collapse" looks like, as compared to controlled demoltion. If you don't understand that the buildings in question had large intact structures -- good as new -- completely unaffected by any fire or impact damage (below and above the impact zones), then you really shouldn't be weighing in.

The thing that makes it most relevant however is the illegal destruction of evidence that occurred, throwing away most of the crucial forensic evidence in the most absurd possible way. Fire Engineering Magazine famously called the FEMA operation a "half baked farce" and stated that "no one is checking the evidence for anything." They demanded that the steel which was being treated like "garbage" be kept and that the destruction of evidence "must stop immediately."

NIST has recently admitted as much: "...the core columns recovered from floors where fires were known to have occured represent 1 percent of the columns in those areas."

They then admit that it is not possible to "...extrapolate from such a small sample size..."

They have only (allegedly) 1% of the relevant steel? They could and should have easily had 100% of all the steel. They "had" every single bit of those buildings in their custody at one point. It wasn't stolen by Osama.

So please don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining lemonade.

2. No official agency (FAA, FBI, or the airlines) has ever released a list of the 9/11 passengers. But within hours, the FBI released a list of the hijackers.

"Rebuttal: False. The complete passenger lists were released in the Moussaoui trial. The FBI identified the suspects easily because few made any attempt to disguise their names on flight and credit card records and they were among the few non-U.S. citizens and nearly the only passengers with Arabic names on their flights, enabling the FBI to identify their names an other details within hours."

Unfortunately, the FBI has not proven that they actually got on the planes. There were 19 men, no? So there should be 19 airport videos at the bare minimum showing that they were actually entering the gate where the planes were that day. These should have time codes and be verifiable.Speaking of the planes, and the alleged gate they were at, we have yet another anomaly, straight from the National Transportation Safety Board, and another from the FBI.

The NTSB literally says in their "Factual Report" that Flight 175 originated at Boston Heliport, code 1MA3, instead of Logan Airport (code BOS). Further, they give no origination at all for Flight 11 and have left it blank.

These files were recently REMOVED from NTSB's website, I just learned during the writing of this article.

FBI has lied about recovering the black boxes from the WTC site. Fireman Nicholas Demassi recoverd these data recorders, and the federal government has made them disappear. Highly suspicious.

Couple that with the FBI refusing to identify the 4 aircraft allegedly used in the attack. The government has not proven that even the planes they say did it were the ones that crashed. If you recall, Operation Northwoods literally described a scenario of swapping planes for a false flag terror attack. Feasibility was established 39 years prior to 9/11. This possibility means that absolute, positive identification is required, and should be demanded.

The government has not met minimal legal standards for a "burden of proof" regarding many, many aspects of the 9/11 attacks.

3. Multiple air-defense drills were planned for the morning of 9/11. These exercises left only two fighter jets available to protect the entire Northeastern United States.

"Rebuttal: False. There’s a distinct lack of evidence for any of these exercises adversely affecting the response to 9/11, and is based on shoddy speculative research by a guy writing under a pseudonym."

A lack of evidence? Eighty four minutes warning, and the military headquarters at the Pentagon is struck without anyone noticing an attacking plane? You miss a lot of evidence, if you don't want to see it.

The claim about "two fighter jets" is inaccurate, and not my claim. But numerous aircraft were moved north and out of range to respond. There were also simulated attacks staged on the military communications networks, during the actual attacks. False radar blips were witnessed on FAA flight controller screens leading to the possibility of "22" hijacked aircraft. And a mysterious white jet was circling around the White House.

The presence of exercises also gave Dick Cheney a military role, where otherwise he is not in the chain of command. Cheney was placed in charge of all "military preparedness" exercises and several were rescheduled to coincide with the 9/11 date.

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission (omitted from Report) completely discredits Cheney, and the Report's own claims about that pentagon plane. They knew where it was, and they had time to react.

These are all suspicious. Too many coincidences to just blindly write them all off. Unless that is what you wanted to do in the first place.

4. Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper and part of the World Trade Center complex, was not struck by a plane but collapsed in 6.5 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on September 11th, in the exact manner of a controlled demolition.

Rebuttal: "False. It was struck by debris from the WTC, had raging fires that could not be fought, was judged by firefighters to collapse hours before, it took 15 seconds to fall, not 6.5s, and it did not collapse in the 'exact manner of a controlled demolition' as certified by all experts (the claim derives from one expert who saw only one video angle)."

For a prewritten, supposedly thought out piece, you sure don't document much. I guess we're supposed to guess all your fictional "experts" who dance around in your head.

Your first statement is false. The building was not struck by a plane. Thus, the first claim was true, and yours is false. If we're going to ignore that "debris" and a jetliner are in fact different, then there's not much need to talk about anything at all.

The "firefighters" who "judged" it were TERRIFIED from the morning's events at the WTC. Of course they were going to err on the side of safety. That does not make a collapse into the footprint at quite a rapid rate (have you bothered to watch it?) an eventuality. Those are simply the opinions of a terrified group, which happens to defy that 100 years of precedent you seem to have not thought about.

Aysmmetrical damage is what we have: one side of a four sided rectangle was damaged. How does this translate into global symmetrical collapse into the building's footprint?

Well, in fact we don't know. Because not even Dept. of Commerce political entity NIST can explain building 7 without causing a lot of laughter and head shaking, and so they have opted not to try, to date.

As far as similarities to controlled demolition go, you haven't bothered to specify what it is you believe is dissimilar. Typical.

If the duration is your main point, you neglect that timed sequences are programmed. They can be altered, and can be executed in stages. If the point is to give the impression of a longer "collapse", then it is possible for non-crucial supports to be taken out over a longer time period in order to communicate the effect of "collapse." Meaning: your timing claim proves nothing.

Then we have all those witnesses reporting "explosions." And all those firefighters too. And this one, oddly edited out of an HBO documentary when the explosion would be the "money shot", the "draw", and cause for more concern, and more viewers.

5. There was no visible airplane debris where Flight 93 supposedly crashed in Pennsylvania – only a smoking hole in the ground, much like a bomb crater.

Rebuttal: "Utter nonsense, indicitive of the kind of rumors that passes for evidence in these circles."

Actually, the first description is somewhat accurate, and you don't seem to know anything about it.

I don't think there's a case there, as the wreckage (allegedly) ended up underground for the most part. But your ignorant dismissal is indicative of the lack of investigation on the part of typical "debunkers."

6. Office fires burn at low temperatures of 600-800 dF. Jet fuel is an ordinary hydrocarbon; its maximal burning temperature is 1200 dF in open air. Steel melts at 2750 dF. Neither jet fuel nor the burning contents of the buildings could cause the towers’ steel structure to buckle or fail.

Rebuttal: "False or misleading. A huge scientific and engineering study (NIST), including a large number of peer-reviewed journal articles have described and explained the events satisfactorily, in that a weakening of the structure by the airplane impact, the uncontrolled fires, and the structural design specifics sufficed to force the collapse. The quoted temperature facts are partially false, misleading or irrelevant."

We get it. You side with the government. Whatever they say is ok with you. But funny you should bring up "False or misleading", because NIST also said, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."Here is what engineering professor William Rice has said about this matter:

"The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. (...) Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more." -William Rice P.E., Why the towers fell: Two theories

7. Tests have shown that cell-phone calls cannot be made at altitudes over 4000 to 8000 feet, as cell towers are located on the ground. Commercial airplanes fly at 30,000 feet and above. No passenger could have successfully placed a call for help by cell phone from an airborne plane on 9/11, as reported.

Rebuttal: "Technically dubious or false, plus most calls were made on in-seat airphones. More importantly, the claim of 'fake phone calls' requires the complicity of the surviving families: go tell them to their faces."

Untrue, and poor rebuttal. No complicity is needed if they are fooled by voice morphing technology.

Next, some calls that were claimed to have been made (Barbara Olson) were apparently never connected at all, according to the FBI at the Moussaoui trial. Next, "cell phones" were clearly claimed, and not Airphones for some number of calls.

The Todd Beamer call was 13 minutes with an operator, rather than with a "family" member who would know him. His "Let's roll," call is odd, as is Mark Bingham's and as are other calls referring to guns onboard the plane, which is to this day unexplained.

Bottom line, we are being deliberately kept in the dark on the phone call records, and these calls have been exploited for propaganda purposes by the administration.

It's odd arguing why we need full disclosure from this criminal regime who let these attacks happen in so many ways it boggles the mind. Make them prove ALL of this evidence is true and real, and verifiable. Why would you oppose that? Why would you expect anything less?

8. 9/11 was immediately declared an “act of war” by President Bush. The rubble from the Twin Towers’ collapse was carted away and the steel sold and shipped overseas without examination.

Rebuttal: "False and misleading. Rubble was carted away fast to find possible survivors in the buried basement floors. All debris was screened according to a list of criteria indicating damage or structural importance. These segments were kept for investigation, the rest was sold for recycling (Asian countries buy up steel worldwide due to their massive production needs)."

Answers like this one are why I need to smack your ignorant bullshit down. The first point is "Act of War." Your first statement (as usual, despite the context) is "False."

Yes, Dick Cheney standing next to Bush on television corrected Bush and told him rather than a "crime", that 9/11 was an "Act of war."

I already have insider quotes by the editor of Fire Engineering Magazine and NIST about the paltry amount of steel kept. The fact that you don't see the problem here destroys your credibility.

I hardly think that the United States of America was needing to make a quick buck off of the skeletal remains of the World Trade Center. And I am quite certain they could have found some patch of ground on US soil to store and study the 9/11 steel, rather than having China turn it into toys or whatever.

Your points are apologetics for thugs and tyrants, and not very convincing.

9. Enormous profits were made by insiders on plummeting stock prices of the two airlines involved in 9/11 – American and United. Federal law protects their identities.

Rebuttal: "Resolved: This alleges there were insiders because some investors gained, putting the wagon before the horse. The stock story has since made it to snopes.com as a well documented urban myth."

"Well documented," says the man who documents nothing. Have you read the Snopes piece?

It's all the word of the fraudulent 9/11 Commission, the biggest cover up in the history of the US. What do they say?

"A single US based institutional investor with no conceivable connection to Al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts..."

It's not a connection to "Al Qaeda" we're concerned about. Now is it?They don't seem to have investigated Mayo Shattuck and the unclaimed $2.5 million trades, connected -- coincidentally -- back to CIA #3 man Buzzy Krongard (who used to have Shattuck's job at the bank that made the trades). Shattuck resigned immediately after 9/11 without giving a reason.

There were other suspicious trades reported on other companies affected by the attacks (insurers, WTC tenants), which receive no treatment there.So easy to "debunk" stuff when you just don't want to know. The debunking ignores a lot of what is known, and trusts a bogus investigation staffed by the White House.

Rebuttal: "Misleading. Out of court settlements always work that way. The way it's phrased falsely insinuates that compensated victims have no other way of further discovery."

Not misleading at all. It's true. They agree not to sue in order to cash in on the fund. What other way to "discovery" is there, if they are barred from suing?The families are allowed to "discover" things in the newspaper?

I have used you to frame the debate in a more honest light and to prompt people to dig deeper than your cursory spin. You personally, I could care less. You probably still have that Bush/Cheney bumper sticker on your gas guzzler.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

From a letter I wrote to a friend regarding the lies of conspiracy debunkers:

Steve,Regarding those conspiracy debunkers you have so much faith in, here is a list of LIES they've told in the past up til now. Are you sure you want to put your faith in such liars?

Lies about the JFK assassination:

- They claim that average marksman have been able to replicate Lee Harvey Oswald's feat with no problem. That's a lie. No one has been able to duplicate it exactly, especially the part where you shoot the head from behind and it moves back toward you, as in the Zapruder film. It's also very hard to hit a head from that far away, for even the best marksman.

- They claim that the 50+ witnesses who heard shots coming from the grassy knoll don't exist, that only one or two reported that, and neither of them were credible.

- They claim that JFK's head moved backward in the Zapruder film because when you shoot objects, the force of the bullet causes a ricochet and makes the object move toward you rather than away from you. Total lie and goes against basic common sense. Any rifleman will tell you that's not true.

The above claims were made by Gerald Posner in his book "Case Closed". He is a conspiracy debunker who will lie to defend the official version of everything. He is also an attorney.

* Ask yourself this: If JFK had lived, he would have pulled out of Vietnam and that war would never have happened, and 60,000 Americans would not have been killed there. It's well documented that he was planning to withdraw from Vietnam. Now, do you really think one lone nut, with NO motive or reason to kill JFK at all, caused the Vietnam War to happen, and that if he hadn't shot JFK for no reason, that the Vietnam War would have been prevented? Think about it.

Lies about 9/11:

- They claim that at 30,000 feet in the air in an airline, you have a 50/50 chance of making a call on your cell phone. (Popular Mechanics made this claim) That's a total lie. Above 4000 feet, cell phone calls start to drop off, and above 8000 feet, there is no signal at all, period. So 30,000 feet would be totally impossible. Try turning on your phone during flight and you will see that these debunkers LIED to you.

- They claim that the WTC was hollow inside due to the claim by the 9/11 Commission. However, that is not true since the actual blueprints of the WTC show 47 steel core columns inside the WTC, not a hollow shaft. So the 9/11 Commission lied and so did the debunkers. Anyone who worked there will tell you that too.

- They claim that you can see the plane that hit the Pentagon in that clip from the security camera. But anyone can see it and see that you can't see any plane. Another obvious and desperate lie. See this dumb lie made by a debunker here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBHi9CbrNf4

So you see, these people are pathological liars. And you put your faith in them?! Isn't that foolish?

Challenge to you: Go look at the debunker sites again. You will see that they have NO EXPLANATION for the WTC and Building 7 collapsing at free fall speed with zero resistance. They only claim that explosives weren't used, but they don't even prove that. They just nitpick technicalities, but DO NOT offer any explanation that fits all the data or facts. Go to their site and you will see.

In fact, go to all the debunker sites and if you can find me even ONE explanation for the WTC collapse and Building 7 that fits with all the data, then I will admit that you win. Go ahead and try it, and you will see that they totally DO NOT have an explanation that fits the data.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Scepcop wrote: You will see that they have NO EXPLANATION for the WTC and Building 7 collapsing at free fall speed with zero resistance.

This one sentence is all anyone needs to know that the author of this post is deceitful. The building DID NOT F#@ING COLLAPSE AT FREE FALL!!!! Even most conspiracy theorists don't say it was an absolute "free fall" and to say it was is 100% deceitful and I'll go so far as to say they are a liar.Watch any video--even the conspiracy videos. Take your pick. It will show columns and debris falling faster the the building itself does proving, beyond any doubt, the building did not "free fall." Jeezus h christ, how many freakin' times do we have to tell you CT people! Stop being deceitful and let's discuss in a mature manner.

Scepcop wrote:From a letter I wrote to a friend regarding the lies of conspiracy debunkers:

Steve,Regarding those conspiracy debunkers you have so much faith in, here is a list of LIES they've told in the past up til now. Are you sure you want to put your faith in such liars?

Lies about the JFK assassination:

- They claim that average marksman have been able to replicate Lee Harvey Oswald's feat with no problem. That's a lie. No one has been able to duplicate it exactly, especially the part where you shoot the head from behind and it moves back toward you, as in the Zapruder film. It's also very hard to hit a head from that far away, for even the best marksman.

- They claim that the 50+ witnesses who heard shots coming from the grassy knoll don't exist, that only one or two reported that, and neither of them were credible.

- They claim that JFK's head moved backward in the Zapruder film because when you shoot objects, the force of the bullet causes a ricochet and makes the object move toward you rather than away from you. Total lie and goes against basic common sense. Any rifleman will tell you that's not true.

The above claims were made by Gerald Posner in his book "Case Closed". He is a conspiracy debunker who will lie to defend the official version of everything. He is also an attorney.

* Ask yourself this: If JFK had lived, he would have pulled out of Vietnam and that war would never have happened, and 60,000 Americans would not have been killed there. It's well documented that he was planning to withdraw from Vietnam. Now, do you really think one lone nut, with NO motive or reason to kill JFK at all, caused the Vietnam War to happen, and that if he hadn't shot JFK for no reason, that the Vietnam War would have been prevented? Think about it.

Lies about 9/11:

- They claim that at 30,000 feet in the air in an airline, you have a 50/50 chance of making a call on your cell phone. (Popular Mechanics made this claim) That's a total lie. Above 4000 feet, cell phone calls start to drop off, and above 8000 feet, there is no signal at all, period. So 30,000 feet would be totally impossible. Try turning on your phone during flight and you will see that these debunkers LIED to you.

- They claim that the WTC was hollow inside due to the claim by the 9/11 Commission. However, that is not true since the actual blueprints of the WTC show 47 steel core columns inside the WTC, not a hollow shaft. So the 9/11 Commission lied and so did the debunkers. Anyone who worked there will tell you that too.

- They claim that you can see the plane that hit the Pentagon in that clip from the security camera. But anyone can see it and see that you can't see any plane. Another obvious and desperate lie. See this dumb lie made by a debunker here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBHi9CbrNf4

So you see, these people are pathological liars. And you put your faith in them?! Isn't that foolish?

Challenge to you: Go look at the debunker sites again. You will see that they have NO EXPLANATION for the WTC and Building 7 collapsing at free fall speed with zero resistance. They only claim that explosives weren't used, but they don't even prove that. They just nitpick technicalities, but DO NOT offer any explanation that fits all the data or facts. Go to their site and you will see.

In fact, go to all the debunker sites and if you can find me even ONE explanation for the WTC collapse and Building 7 that fits with all the data, then I will admit that you win. Go ahead and try it, and you will see that they totally DO NOT have an explanation that fits the data.

The Kennedy assassination has nothing to do with the supposed 9/11 US government CT.As for the 9/11 US government conspiracy present facts not allegations from more CT'ERS

There was a real 9/11 conspiracy by a terrorist group, they call themselves Al Qaeda.

Scepcop wrote: You will see that they have NO EXPLANATION for the WTC and Building 7 collapsing at free fall speed with zero resistance.

This one sentence is all anyone needs to know that the author of this post is deceitful. The building DID NOT F#@ING COLLAPSE AT FREE FALL!!!! Even most conspiracy theorists don't say it was an absolute "free fall" and to say it was is 100% deceitful and I'll go so far as to say they are a liar.Watch any video--even the conspiracy videos. Take your pick. It will show columns and debris falling faster the the building itself does proving, beyond any doubt, the building did not "free fall." Jeezus h christ, how many freakin' times do we have to tell you CT people! Stop being deceitful and let's discuss in a mature manner.

The poster is guilty of a small amount of terminological inexactitude born of enthusiasm. It was near free fall speed and very little resistance, far less than you would expect from a modern steel frame skyscraper. Many engineers have pointed out that if the joints hadn't been weakened to prepare the building for a controlled demolition, and the 'official account' of a plane impact and fire (low temperature) was correct, then you would possibly only see some bending of a few columns at the site of the impact, certainly not a complete collapse of the building. It would not fall into its own footprint, but bend at the point of greatest weakness.

Having gotten that minor, quibbling objection out of the way, are you now ready to discuss the rest of the evidence 'in a mature manner'? No? Didn't think so.

ProfWag on more than one occasions has perfectly evinced the occasionally seen 'ostrich behaviour' of the pseudosceptic in this fashion -- he will pick at a minor point of terminology, declare it 'factually wrong', then use that as an excuse to ignore the whole argument being presented as a metaphor for putting his head back in the sand.

His other famous trick is his 'show me the evidence' line, and when you go on and show him the evidence via the unavoidable process of pasting in some information, he accuses the poster of 'flooding' the forum or his limited senses, and he can't take it all in. All good, serious, sincere stuff in the interests of genuine scientific enquiry, eh prof?

Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 29 Sep 2012, 13:24, edited 4 times in total.

really? wrote:There was a real 9/11 conspiracy by a terrorist group, they call themselves Al Qaeda.

That would be, who, Osama bin Laden who denied on two early occasions having anything to do with it? That would be 'al Qaeda' which means 'the list' or 'the database' in English -- being a database of Afghani people put together by the CIA and US military in Afghanistan when arming and training that group to fight the Russians? A convenient handle for 'terrorism' and a scapegoat now. Let's talk about the US interest in hydrocarbon resources in the Caspian Sea area, and sealing off access to those Caspian Sea resources to China and Russia by doing deals with Turkmenistan, creating a complete wall of countries from Uzbekistan through Afghanistan and arrangements with Pakistan to create a pipeline corridor and a wall of bases quarantining the area from those other powerful countries competing with US global interests.

The great thing about this is that it will only take around 25 seconds to a couple of minutes of their 'oh-so-precious' time away from watching the crap on their TV, so they will almost always do what you say even to just get rid of you.

Have them watch this 25 second clip:

let them watch it a few times if they want and then ask them what the video is asking which is

"If this happened tomorrow, would you believe it ? "

and see what they say.

It should be good for lots of laughs because if they have the brains to recognize this 25 second clip for the complete media fakery and forgery that it so obviously is (by the video maker - complete with fake headlines and CNN logo - CNN: Breaking News - F18 hijacked by Hamas terrorists - Iran is supporting terrorism on U.S. soil, a non-event, & audio transposed from the 9-11 newscasts in the background) then you can just tell them:

Well, this is what you saw on 9-11 as well, so why do you believe that ?

After which you can show them one of the ridiculously fake 9-11 clips such as this one:

and ask them why in the world would they not believe the one they just saw & believe the others from 9-11 ?

Then try not to laugh at the look on their faces as they try every lame excuse in the book to deny their own eyes and logic.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Scepcop wrote: You will see that they have NO EXPLANATION for the WTC and Building 7 collapsing at free fall speed with zero resistance.

This one sentence is all anyone needs to know that the author of this post is deceitful. The building DID NOT F#@ING COLLAPSE AT FREE FALL!!!! Even most conspiracy theorists don't say it was an absolute "free fall" and to say it was is 100% deceitful and I'll go so far as to say they are a liar.Watch any video--even the conspiracy videos. Take your pick. It will show columns and debris falling faster the the building itself does proving, beyond any doubt, the building did not "free fall." Jeezus h christ, how many freakin' times do we have to tell you CT people! Stop being deceitful and let's discuss in a mature manner.

I've already debunked that long ago. Do you have amnesia or something? Adding a few seconds to the rate of collapse does NOT refute free fall. Truthers use the term "near free fall" or "virtual free fall".

Either way, you guys are still at a no win situation because you can't explain the rate of collapse, which cannot be explained by fire.

NIST admitted that the first few seconds of WTC7's collapse was free fall.

You really don't know sh** about this issue. Your side has been cornered in a no win situation, so you try to use technicalities. Sorry, no cigar. Freethinking people can see through your deceptive tactics.

The bottom line is that you guys have NO explanation at all for the near free fall collapse of the twin towers and Building 7. Everyone knows that something very fishy is going on. Only automatons like you who are incapable of free thought can't see that or are in denial.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

really? wrote:The Kennedy assassination has nothing to do with the supposed 9/11 US government CT.As for the 9/11 US government conspiracy present facts not allegations from more CT'ERS

There was a real 9/11 conspiracy by a terrorist group, they call themselves Al Qaeda.

Both events involve conspiracies and cover ups. For years, it was taboo to question the official explanation of the JFK assassination too. Only after the emotional trauma of the American people subsided were people able to look at it objectively.

WTF? I thought you skeptics said that you didn't believe without evidence, so why the hell are you now believing in conspiracy theories about Al Qaeda WITHOUT EVIDENCE?! WTF? I thought you guys were honest people? LOL

You just proved my point. You guys don't care about science or evidence. All you care about is defending the official version of everything. You guys are no different than Fox News. If something is official, then it doesn't need any evidence to support it, in your book that is.

That's illogical. So why then do you call yourself "skeptics" when skepticism has nothing to do with taking everything official on faith alone? That's the key question that you guys keep ignoring. I've called you guys out long ago and now you are proving me right more and more. The gig is up you guys.

Btw, FYI, Al Qaeda was a US funded group during the Afghan war. The name means "the database" in Arabic.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

The crap you post is exhausting Winston and has been refuted over and over and over and over and over and over. You have zero evidence for your anti-governmental propoganda crap. How 'bout you follow trials that have begun on 5 Al Qaeda members and watch their actions and look at real evidence for a change. You are, in fact, being quite deceitful when you attempt to advertise your view and support it, not with evidence, but by trying to make fun of those who don't agree with you. Shame on you Mr. Wu.